The transition from shutdown of elective orthopaedic services to the resumption of pre-COVID-19 activity presents many challenges. These include concerns about patient safety, staff safety, and the viability of health economies. Careful planning is necessary to allow patients to benefit from orthopaedic care in a safe and sustainable manner. Cite this article:
Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents. Cite this article:
Informed consent is a very important part of surgical treatment. In this paper, we report a number of legal judgements in spinal surgery where there was no criticism of the surgical procedure itself. The fault that was identified was a failure to inform the patient of alternatives to, and material risks of, surgery, or overemphasizing the benefits of surgery. In one case, there was a promise that a specific surgeon was to perform the operation, which did not ensue. All of the faults in these cases were faults purely of the consenting process. In many cases, the surgeon claimed to have explained certain risks to the patient but was unable to provide proof of doing so. We propose a checklist that, if followed, would ensure that the surgeon would take their patients through the relevant matters but also, crucially, would act as strong evidence in any future court proceedings that the appropriate discussions had taken place. Although this article focuses on spinal surgery, the principles and messages are applicable to the whole of orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article:
Payments by the NHS Litigation Authority continue to rise each year, and reflect an increase in successful claims for negligence against NHS Trusts. Information about the reasons for which Trusts are sued in the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery is scarce. We analysed 130 consecutive cases of alleged clinical negligence in which the senior author had been requested to act as an expert witness between 2004 and 2006, and received information on the outcome of 97 concluded cases from the relevant solicitors. None of the 97 cases proceeded to a court hearing. Overall, 55% of cases were abandoned by the claimants’ solicitors, and the remaining 45% were settled out of court. The cases were settled for sums ranging from £4500 to £2.7 million, the median settlement being £45 000. The cases that were settled out of court were usually the result of delay in treatment or diagnosis, or because of substandard surgical technique.
Following the publication in 2007 of the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) for patients undergoing surgery, concerns were raised by British orthopaedic surgeons as to the appropriateness of the recommendations for their clinical practice. In order to address these concerns NICE and the British Orthopaedic Association agreed to engage a representative panel of orthopaedic surgeons in the process of developing expanded VTE guidelines applicable to all patients admitted to hospital. The functions of this panel were to review the evidence and to consider the applicability and implications in orthopaedic practice in order to advise the main Guideline Development Group in framing recommendations. The panel considered both direct and indirect evidence of the safety and efficacy, the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis and its implication in clinical practice for orthopaedic patients. We describe the process of selection of the orthopaedic panel, the evidence considered and the contribution of the panel to the latest guidelines from NICE on the prophylaxis against VTE, published in January 2010.
This study assessed whether undergraduate performance improved following the introduction in 2006 of a musculoskeletal teaching programme lasting for seven weeks. Different methods were used to deliver knowledge and skills in trauma and orthopaedic surgery, rheumatology and allied specialties. The programme combined four main elements: traditional firm-based teaching, weekly plenary sessions, a task-based workbook and additional specialist clinics. The block of 139 students who attended in its first year were assessed using a multiple choice question examination just before their final examinations in 2008. They showed a 6% improvement in performance over a control group of 130 students assessed in 2005 before the programme had commenced. There was no difference in performance between the students assessed in 2005 and a second group of 46 students from 2008 who did not attend the new teaching programme. Performance was improved by providing more focused musculoskeletal training using available resources, as well as increasing the length of the programme.
Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.
